I think it's something that listed some sources of cost cutting, but I'm still not sure that she can get this down to something that's affordable. My state's negotiated plan costs $400 a month (that's $4,800 a year) for an individual high deductible (about $12,000) plan.

It's all in the bottom line. What would she have to do to get it down to something feasible to pay, say, $2000 a year? I can't really say, but I doubt she's there yet. And the whole tax credit thing only nets a real benefit if you already have a high income.

I get the feeling the goal is get this thing past the sensors. I'm not yet convinced it actually works for your typical working person without employer coverage, which should be a goal. Unless she plans to pass it in her second term and then leave office.

Is Hillary Clinton still using "by the end of my second term" as the date when we're supposed to enjoy all this delicious health care?

Who thinks a second-term President, at the end of the ouroboros that is Bush Clinton Bush Clinton, is going to have the political capital to finish the deal?

I have problems with HRC's timetable for enacting the plan, not the plan itself.

"I have problems with HRC's timetable for enacting the plan, not the plan itself."

I would advise her to do it in her second term if it's going to screw over the same people the MA plan screws over. At the national level, I'm thinking that's got to be a lot of people!

By the end of her second term we'll all be living under the New Caliphate, according to the nutters. What does sharia law say about health care?

If the health tax credit worked like the earned income tax credit then it would help the poor pay for health insurance. The other parts the fill in the cracks are Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP.

In this system there will be portability and no cherry picking. Therefore it will be true competition.

The mandate would work well because if you don't buy into a plan you would not get your tax credit.

"The mandate would work well because if you don't buy into a plan you would not get your tax credit."

Well then let me be more plain. The tax credit will not pay for the plan. So, we really do need to know how much the plan will cost.

Vote Republican is looking pretty good right now.

fyi: Here is a quickie analysis of Hillary's plan from Don McCanne at Physicians for a National Health Program:

http://pnhp.org/news/quote_of_the_day.php

Hillary Clinton’s proposal “preserves existing health insurance,” and includes the responsibility of individuals “to get and keep insurance” through the current private insurance market, or through a “Health Choices Menu” of private FEHBP-type plans, or through a Medicare-type public program.

Thus her proposal is an individual mandate to purchase private insurance that is no longer affordable for average-income individuals, or to purchase a public plan that will be even more expensive because of adverse selection.

To make the plans affordable for individuals, she would use a combination of refundable tax credits and a cap on premiums at a percentage of income. Assuming that the plans would provide adequate benefits and adequate protection against financial hardship, the increased spending through the tax system would be exponentially more than the estimates in her plan. And most of the proposed savings to pay for these increases are largely nebulous, and some of those measures would actually increase costs.

Further, the administrative complexities of refundable tax credits and means-tested premium caps would still leave many without coverage. Coverage will never be universal unless it is truly automatic for everyone.

If we are going to use the tax system to pay for health care anyway then why should we waste funds on the profoundly inefficient system of segregated private health plans? A universal risk pool that is equitably funded through the tax system is the most efficient and least expensive method of ensuring comprehensive coverage for everyone.

Many will try to contrast the differences in the Clinton, Obama and Edwards proposals, but they are all basically the same. In spite of their rhetoric, they have each made the protection and enhancement of the private insurance plans a higher priority than patients."

I would only disagree with Don insofar as saying that Obama's plan is significantly even less than this, and Edwards is a bit less bad. A pleasant surprise that Hillary's is offering something this "bold"... but it is not a surprise that it is more subsidy and support for the private for profit insurers that have given so much to her campaign.

Once again, time to point out that Medicare overhead of 3-4% versus the private for profits overhead of 15-20% is $350 billion not going to health care, but going to an unneeded middleman. Plus further savings by not having the paperwork involved in determining and rejecting eligibility if everyone is eligible, and all the many other reasons single payer is the way to go to provide Universality & Comprhensive coverage & Cost-control.